Tuesday, June 23, 2009

The Return of the Noble Savage

Scientists try out a ridiculous theory that that man would have better benefited by remaining a hunter-gatherer.


Jenny said...


This idea's been doing the rounds now for what... two hundred odd years now? At least? ("first came to prominence" with Dimond and G,G,AS? Little longer than that... :) )

Reading the article it looks like the good Dr, and to a much lesser extent the author of the piece had a bit of perspective - the editor not so much.

You ever notice that (with the rare dirttiming exception) most everyone lamenting the whole "advent of agriculture and civilization" thing are folks who'd last about a day and a half if they actually had to live in a hunter-gatherer state?

Bob said...

@Jenny: and I was also thinking that available resources for hunter/gatherers are can only support a small population of humans, rather than the billions we now have. Isn't it common with environmentalists to see man as a plague on the planet that needs to be controlled and reduced in numbers, if not made extinct all together?

TOTWTYTR said...

The invention of agriculture, thus freeing some humans from the near constant search for food, is the only reason we have any civilization at all.

Once again, we get a stark demonstration of the difference between education and intelligence.

No wonder academics voted overwhelmingly for President Feckless.

Jenny said...

Bob... I think so.

But hey, I can't help but remember Art's comment one upon a time "this country was a lot more fun a hundred million people ago."

Having lived in both very high and very low population density areas, I have to say.. the latter is a lot more livable. So I can understand the whole "population bomb" thing of a generation ago. Thing is, you do that and the next generation's at the mercy of those that don't... Steyn's book comes to mind there.

Just ain't a good answer there... save for us to figure out terraforming or suchlike. :)